Predictable response

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

I disagree. "Human rights" are the rights you have just because you are
human. "The social contract" is an agreement between the the people and
the government where the people choose not to exercise some of their
rights individually but rather collectively. Those rights are not given
up. They are still the rights of the individuals.

'Rights' have no existence outside of a Human social milieu.
Otherwise any 'Right' can be named, for example, my 'Right' to set fire
to anyone I don't like. Am I born with that inalienable 'Right'? And if
not, why not?

 

[krw]

The European Commission already did that, and Ted Heath let them.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[John Woodgate]

You didn't answer the question.

Can you perhaps deduce from my answer that I was not exactly overjoyed
by the event?

 

[Ken Smith]

'Rights' have no existence outside of a Human social milieu.

I believe you are wrong about this. Your argument below is completely
bogus and I can easily imagine that others will come up with better ones.
I do not wish that my pointing out how wrong this argument is be
considered as any sort of limit to my disagreement with the statement.

Otherwise any 'Right' can be named, for example, my 'Right' to set fire
to anyone I don't like.

The mere statement of the existance of a right does not make it exist.
People talk of unicorns all the time.

Am I born with that inalienable 'Right'? And if
not, why not?

No such right could exist. Human rights do not conflict.

 

[John Woodgate]

I believe you are wrong about this. Your argument below is completely
bogus and I can easily imagine that others will come up with better
ones. I do not wish that my pointing out how wrong this argument is be
considered as any sort of limit to my disagreement with the statement.

I'm sure you know what you mean by that last sentence. But what 'rights'
in an absolute sense, outside of a specific social order, do you think
humans have?

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

I'm sure you know what you mean by that last sentence. But what 'rights'
in an absolute sense, outside of a specific social order, do you think
humans have?

And how does one objectively test for their presence?
Or is it just a matter of opinion?

 

[Ken Smith]

I'm sure you know what you mean by that last sentence.

The argument below that point was claiming a silly absolute right as a
straw man argument. Someone else could come up with a much better
argument for there being no absolute rights. I did not want people to
think that my disagreement with the argument was merely a
disagreement about the specific strawman rather than the claim that there
are no absolute rights.

But what 'rights'
in an absolute sense, outside of a specific social order, do you think
humans have?

There is a lot of disagreement about this but in the US many believe that
the rights of "life, liberty and etc" are absolute rights. Even though
those were said to be endowed by the "creator", which many would argue
makes them not absolute at all.

Whatever arguments there may be about what rights there are, I believe
that the term "human rights" can only apply to such absolute rights.
During the time that there was slavery in the US black people were being
denied the use of rights that they had. They did not gain the rights only
when slavery was ended.

I will take the case of "life" to expand on: Trying to state in a simple
phrase what that right is, isn't as easy as it sounds. The right to life
does not mean that if a person is trying to shoot themselves, I should
to place my body in the path of the bullet to protect them. It also does
not prevent a killing in self defence. In both those cases, the other
person has created the situation where someone dies. I've only have the
power to change who.

 

[Ken Smith]

And how does one objectively test for their presence?
Or is it just a matter of opinion?

There are opinions about whether there are such things as rights and
opinions about what rights there may be. We may be in the same sort of
situation scientists found themselves in many years back. They thought it
likely that there were atoms. They had theories of the universe that
included their existance. However, they could not detect an atom nor tell
what it was made of. Most people would agree that during that time atoms
did really exist, they didn't appear when the first measurement that
proved their existance was done.

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

There are opinions about whether there are such things as rights and
opinions about what rights there may be. We may be in the same sort of
situation scientists found themselves in many years back. They thought it
likely that there were atoms. They had theories of the universe that
included their existance. However, they could not detect an atom nor tell
what it was made of. Most people would agree that during that time atoms
did really exist, they didn't appear when the first measurement that
proved their existance was done.

So the existence of the Right to bear arms is something you expect to be
able to verify sometime?

 

[Ken Smith]

Ken Smith wrote: [...]

included their existance. However, they could not detect an atom nor tell
what it was made of. Most people would agree that during that time atoms
did really exist, they didn't appear when the first measurement that
proved their existance was done.

So the existence of the Right to bear arms is something you expect to be
able to verify sometime?

Do you mean me personally or do you mean I can reference someone elses
proof. For the existance of electrons and atoms and the like, we all
assume the other guy got it right because his argument was convincing.

BTW: I don't really expect the "right to bear arms" to be proven to be an
absolute right.

 

[Jim Thompson]

Ken Smith wrote: [...]

included their existance. However, they could not detect an atom nor tell
what it was made of. Most people would agree that during that time atoms
did really exist, they didn't appear when the first measurement that
proved their existance was done.

So the existence of the Right to bear arms is something you expect to be
able to verify sometime?

Do you mean me personally or do you mean I can reference someone elses
proof. For the existance of electrons and atoms and the like, we all
assume the other guy got it right because his argument was convincing.

BTW: I don't really expect the "right to bear arms" to be proven to be an
absolute right.

I would. Except that the Democrats are coming back into power. Time
to load up on arms and ammo ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Eeyore]

I would. Except that the Democrats are coming back into power. Time
to load up on arms and ammo ;-)

Only a cretin like you could come up with that kind of shit.

Graham

 

[Homer J Simpson]

So the existence of the Right to bear arms is something you expect to be
able to verify sometime?

I'd rather give Janet Jackson the right to bare breasts.

 

[Eeyore]

I'd rather give Janet Jackson the right to bare breasts.

Strangely enough, the sight of bare boobies caused a ruckus in the USA, whilst
dead bodies in the street bother no American at all it seems.

Peculiar priorities for sure ! Save our kids ( and adults too ? ) from bare
flesh but let's encourage pointless killing !

Graham

 

[Ken Smith]

I would. Except that the Democrats are coming back into power. Time
to load up on arms and ammo ;-)

Have no fear. The vast majority of the voters may want the Democrats to
win but the president of Diebold is still a Republican. He has promiced
to ensure the *right* outcome.

 

[Ken Smith]

Strangely enough, the sight of bare boobies caused a ruckus in the USA

It wasn't "boobies" it was one booby flashed.

, whilst
dead bodies in the street bother no American at all it seems.

You can show lots of bloody violence on network TV but not a bare breast.
Humans are strange creatures!

 

[Jim Thompson]

Have no fear. The vast majority of the voters may want the Democrats to
win but the president of Diebold is still a Republican. He has promiced
to ensure the *right* outcome.

I guess we Arizonans are way ahead of the times. Back to paper
ballots. Even the handicap touch screens produce paper hard-copies
that can be visually examined before turning in.

...Jim Thompson

 

[John Larkin]

It wasn't "boobies" it was one booby flashed.

One rather unappealing booby, equipped with a bizarre metallic
lampshade-looking ornament at that. *I* object to being exposed to
that!

You can show lots of bloody violence on network TV but not a bare breast.
Humans are strange creatures!

US TV has managed to mess up science, sports, history, and news.
Better they should leave sex alone.

John

 

[John Larkin]

I guess we Arizonans are way ahead of the times. Back to paper
ballots. Even the handicap touch screens produce paper hard-copies
that can be visually examined before turning in.

...Jim Thompson

Using electronics at voting places in insane. It'll break or be
obsolete/unrepairable in a few years, and costs a fortune. Simple
paper ballots and OCR makes a lot more sense.

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

[...]
I would. Except that the Democrats are coming back into power. Time
to load up on arms and ammo ;-)


Have no fear. The vast majority of the voters may want the Democrats to
win but the president of Diebold is still a Republican. He has promiced
to ensure the *right* outcome.

I guess we Arizonans are way ahead of the times. Back to paper
ballots. Even the handicap touch screens produce paper hard-copies
that can be visually examined before turning in.

...Jim Thompson

Using electronics at voting places in insane. It'll break or be
obsolete/unrepairable in a few years, and costs a fortune. Simple
paper ballots and OCR makes a lot more sense.

John

Yep, that's where we are. I haven't been to the polls in years. I do
the mail-in ballot thing, where they use OCR to count and electronic
signature verification to validate... at the polls only the little old
lady looks at your signature ;-)

...Jim Thompson