Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:29 pm
What are some basic human rights that we can all agree to?
For example, can we all agree that anyone accused of a crime should receive a fair trial?
If not, what would be some problems with the above right whereby it should not be a basic human right?
What other rights can we pretty much all agree to?
What about a right that, no one should be denied a fair means of providing basic necessities for themselves or their dependent loved ones, in order to live. Or perhaps a right to fair compensation for one's labor?
What rights do you think can be made basic to everyone?
ultimately there are no rights for anyone. tooth and claw rules.
in ""civilized society" - post the las 2000 yrs or so - we have the foundation of inalienable rights - delf defense, right to live/etc.......
not sure what your point is - in the abstract there are no rights - though i think man is a moral social animal and has a sense of right and wrong and so is born with enalianable rights mindset.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:04 pmMaybe, if you included woman and children here, then you might get more agreement.
They are included: it's just cleaner to say a man belongs to himself; a man's life, liberty, and property are his.
a man, woman, or child belongs to him-or her-self; a man's, woman's, or child's life, liberty, and property are his or hers is cumbersome.
Why do you think or believe you cannot get ANY one here to agree with you?
Hell if I know.
correct, there is no mandate that inalienable rights are proper - and in a cold universe its not Truth - but i beleive man as a social animal has dna and an inborn bias to affirm siad rights as a "truth"/
i know i do and you do - and millions - billions past and present and futre share our view on this matter.
commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:09 pm
I don’t know that we can agree, but I would consider it a basic human right to have access to healthcare.
as do i - but if you and i were born a cneury earlier - we would view that is a privalage not a basic right.
just saayin.
if you and i were born a cnetruy earlier would be be the same persons we are now ofr aliens? i think we'd be the same myself. same sense of right and wrong - but view health care as a privalage and not a right.
today i think it should be a right personally - just sayin here.
commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:09 pm
I don’t know that we can agree, but I would consider it a basic human right to have access to healthcare.
Okay. But on what would you base that right?
For there was surely a time in human civilization when there was no reasonable degree of healthcare for anybody...so it couldn't possibly be a basic human right...because it's clearly not intrinsic to being human. Humans have often been without it, and it was not even possible for them to have it for most of human history. Even today, many countries do not even have the means to offer what you might consider a reasonable level of health care...
Consequently, we could argue that we want people to HAVE it, but it couldn't be basic, and couldn't supervene purely upon their status as human beings. It could only be a special privilege granted by those advanced polities with the means to offer it...
Exactly -thanks for having a mind and using it - hope you are well Sir.always good to read your posts you got Horse Sense. /
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:52 pm
Innocent till proven guilty, yeah, another obvious notion that it seems everyone would agree with.
But, nowadays, we don't.
So, yeah, I laugh at the question...
What are some basic human rights that we can all agree to?
...cuz we can't.
Do you disagree with the basic human right to not be abused?
not Henry - but ys i do not affirm any Truth per rights of man myself - in the absract.
but i also understand man is an animal and all animals have a morality to thier tribe (otherwise animals would become extinct) - so man has a bais to affirm a "truth" of inalienable rights as a Truth. sense of fair play (conscience) is inborn in our DNA.
unlike Henry i think more is need - like a valid court and Rule of Law and governments that affirm the rule of law via concent of the people/etc...........
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:01 pmwhy do you not just say; "A human belongs to them self; a human's life, liberty, and property are theirs"?
Look, you asked why I phrased sumthin' the way I did, and I explained why. I got no interest in a dissection.
Leave it be.
"Any life belongs to its self; every animal and plant's [everything's] life, liberty, and property are theirs."
If I had meant to say that I would have. I don't agree with that. Simply, persons belong to themselves. Most of the life on earth are not persons (not as I see it).
Have to dissagree here - i view the above as apt also - animals/p0lants/etc have their right to live per their nature - and man and other animals kill siad plant/animals for food.
darwinism.
so it all fair - animal or man or plant - eahc has its intrests in survival and "mine is mine" per thier evolution/nature.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:32 pm
I guess another thread to my OP:
Is there such a thing as "god-given" or "natural" rights? Or are rights things that a society agrees upon based on what it believes it can fulfill for each other?
there is no God so God did not give right to man - man gave his rights to himself via his conscience which is a prodcut of DNA via evolution of man as a social animal.
yes inalienable rights are iinborn via DNA of man as correct conduct.
not a Truth - if man lack the dna to affirm inaienable rights he would no longer be a man but something els - and that thing would not affirm inalienable rights nor have a conscience as we understand it - if there were an Earth with such a "man" then his code wold be utterly alien and not affimr such a thin as "Rights" as you ad i understand them/
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:32 pm
I guess another thread to my OP:
Is there such a thing as "god-given" or "natural" rights? Or are rights things that a society agrees upon based on what it believes it can fulfill for each other?
I say man's ownness (that he belongs to himself; that his life, liberty, and property are his) comes from god.
I see ego in the concept that a man's life is his own/ I'm just a dumb atheist, but a man did not self start his life on earth - he just found himself here. so if a man did not self alive himself - why does he have the right to presurve siad life?
does any man have the right or power to demand when and where he dies? or just refuse to die?
no - lol. same with his birth.
3.3 yrs ago my dad said - accoding to my bro-law and sister - one day before i saw him - said "I'm not ready to go yet" - next day i saw him he said to me "Pat I'm dying" - what a change a day can make. not into getting personal in a forum made up of 1/2 dick, but did, and just saying/
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:29 pm
Are you advocating that there should be no such thing as rights?
Yes! There is no such thing as, "rights." It's a made-up concept which no one questions because it's what they've always been taught. Five minutes thought will convince any honest person that the idea of rights has no foundation whatsoever. Why should anyone believe something belongs to them just because they exist--even one's life must be constantly maintained by their own effort. You don't just have it.
Well, those are certainly good points. I suppose it's kind of a scary concept for many of us, though, not having rights. It seems like that could be an open invitation for the strongest to just abuse the weakest or even get together and form an alliance against the weakest. Or if a society had a successful dictator then it sounds like, without rights, there might not be a foundation for people to judge dictatorship wrong. Wouldn't it kind of lead to a "wild west" mentality where the one(s) with the biggest gun wins?
yep, but that is just history - dictators have ruled - some well in fact since forever. since they have, they must provide a service for ma the animal on some way that still affirms "rights". otheriwse thre wold be no dictators thee lasst 2 million yrs/
I assume ther service they provide is to stengthen the tribe at the cost of individual rights within the tribe. a form of communism? emannual is now irate - lol.
Well, those are certainly good points. I suppose it's kind of a scary concept for many of us, though, not having rights. It seems like that could be an open invitation for the strongest to just abuse the weakest or even get together and form an alliance against the weakest. Or if a society had a successful dictator then it sounds like, without rights, there might not be a foundation for people to judge dictatorship wrong. Wouldn't it kind of lead to a "wild west" mentality where the one(s) with the biggest gun wins?
So it sounds like “rights” are statutes and laws, which can be broken.
I would say that rights can certainly be defied or transgressed. I don't know if a "right" is the same as a "statute" or "law," though. I think a right is generally more fundamental than a law. A right would supersede law if a law were made such that it encroached on a right. Sort of like our laws today can be challenged if they are perceived to violate our "Bill of Rights."
correct, and why we have Jury Nullification to negate said law - fugative slave laws of old and pot law of today - a jury will just ignore the law and affirm thier conscience (as a Libertarian hold Jury Nullification (Jury Pardon)) as the most valued of all over all other things - it check the abuse of power from the State and negate immoral and unjust laws.
BTW i hate pot - always have - make me dumb and paranoid - but if other like it and jury hates pot laws - more power to them legalize the shit. i'll not smoke it emoke either way........now other drugs? well i liked some of the others much more..............but whatever.
of course not to forget the first case here in the west - per Zinger - who had a paper that crisized the King - the king did not like and had law that prevened crizism - Zinger was arrested and put oin trial and the jury was near starved to death to try to force a guilty virdict - did not work jury aquited and the rest is as they say history..soon after we had our Revolutionary War - for good reason since the brist lost thiers during that time (they had reason 50 yrs proir but their cultur devolved somewat sinc ethe 1650s - became more empirical) - they ammended thier ways later but by then we had left their sorry asses.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:20 pm
[
But laws cannot confer rights: they can only recognize them, or fail to do so.
RIGHT!!!
Okay, but if that's right, then the next question is going to be, "Well, then where do rights come from?" Because we're ruling out human institutions as a basis of rights...so if we have them, they have to come some other way.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:20 pm
[
But laws cannot confer rights: they can only recognize them, or fail to do so.
RIGHT!!!
Okay, but if that's right, then the next question is going to be, "Well, then where do rights come from?" Because we're ruling out human institutions as a basis of rights...so if we have them, they have to come some other way.
What do you think that way is?
DNA via evolution of man as a social animal. as i said in my prior posts above Sir.
/