Rights

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5635
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Rights

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:57 am

Is the only way for one group to gain rights is for other groups to give up on theirs?

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 3566
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:48 am

That seems to be the current thinking.

Group X isnt satisfied with gettin' 'equal' rights but instead wants 'superior' rights (usually justified with some hooey about being downtrodden and how it's only 'fair' the 'oppressors' should now be underfoot).

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4034
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Rights

Post by Greta » Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:57 am

No, that's a zero sum game - a common manipulative political assertion without any basis in fact.

Of course win/win solutions are possible, and they are being achieved all of the time. However, politics in the US has become so toxic and divided that each side seemingly won't countenance anything good happening to their political opponents to the point where they themselves would rather suffer than let those they detest thrive.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1871
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Rights

Post by -1- » Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:04 am

With regard to the Opening Post:

Best is to go with some examples.

Women gained the right to vote. Men did not lose their right to vote.

In many countries, some minority religions gained a right to practice their religion. Those who had been practicing the mainline religion, did not lose their right to practice their religion.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5635
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Rights

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:18 am

-1- wrote: โ†‘
Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:04 am
With regard to the Opening Post:

Best is to go with some examples.

Women gained the right to vote. Men did not lose their right to vote.

In many countries, some minority religions gained a right to practice their religion. Those who had been practicing the mainline religion, did not lose their right to practice their religion.
Men did lose some of their power that comes with the right to vote (a diluted vote in effect).

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1871
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Rights

Post by -1- » Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:37 am

Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:18 am
-1- wrote: โ†‘
Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:04 am
With regard to the Opening Post:

Best is to go with some examples.

Women gained the right to vote. Men did not lose their right to vote.

In many countries, some minority religions gained a right to practice their religion. Those who had been practicing the mainline religion, did not lose their right to practice their religion.
Men did lose some of their power that comes with the right to vote (a diluted vote in effect).

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
Hola. You must name a checkable fact of a power lost by a male or some males that came with the the right for females to vote. It is your duty and responsibility to provide an example.

And we are talking about men giving up rights by women getting the right. You talk about power, while the OP and consequently my response, talks about rights.

You are attempting to do a Strawman, without any success, and failing even with the presentation of the Strawman.

This is why I hate this site sometimes. Too much undisciplined, muddled thinking. Lack of comprehension of precisely stated arguments. Mixing up terms and concepts, and taking the self seriously despite, or rather, because of, irrelevant arguments.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5635
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Rights

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:47 am

-1- wrote: โ†‘
Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:37 am
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:18 am
-1- wrote: โ†‘
Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:04 am
With regard to the Opening Post:

Best is to go with some examples.

Women gained the right to vote. Men did not lose their right to vote.

In many countries, some minority religions gained a right to practice their religion. Those who had been practicing the mainline religion, did not lose their right to practice their religion.
Men did lose some of their power that comes with the right to vote (a diluted vote in effect).

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
Hola. You must name a checkable fact of a power lost by a male or some males that came with the the right for females to vote. It is your duty and responsibility to provide an example.
I thought my response was straightforward. Here's an example:

Suppose there are 1,000,000 males voters. Now suppose there are two candidates, A and B. If 501,000 men vote for A and the law specifies a simple majority, then A wins.

Same situation except now there are 1,000,000 male voters and 1,000,000 female voters. Now if 501,000 men vote for A and 502,000 women vote for B, then B wins under this scenario.

Plain enough?

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1871
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Rights

Post by -1- » Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:00 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:47 am
I thought my response was straightforward. Here's an example:

Suppose there are 1,000,000 males voters. Now suppose there are two candidates, A and B. If 501,000 men vote for A and the law specifies a simple majority, then A wins.

Same situation except now there are 1,000,000 male voters and 1,000,000 female voters. Now if 501,000 men vote for A and 502,000 women vote for B, then B wins under this scenario.

Plain enough?

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
Yes, your response was straightforward. You just repeated it, thanks. I understood it the first time around, that's not what the problem was. The problem was, which you are trying carefully and desparately not address, that RIGHTS HAVE NOT BEEN LOST BY GIVING THE SAME RIGHT TO SOME OTHERS.

You are sticking to your Strawman like a tic to a coondog. I don't want more hypothetical explanations. I want a real life example to back up your claim. And don't come up with a real life example how some lose POWER; that was not the original claim. Show us real life example that some lost their rights because the same rights were given to others.

Language comprehension is not rocket science. Just read the claim, and address it, not something different. Power is not the same as rights. I don't want a discussion now how power and rights have common overlapping areas. I want you to give me / us a real life example how giving the same right as one have to others makes one lose that right.

This is my second request, and I can't be any clearer. If you again waffle and dodge and do a Strawman, I'm quitting here.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5635
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Rights

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:06 pm

-1- wrote: โ†‘
Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:00 pm
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:47 am
I thought my response was straightforward. Here's an example:

Suppose there are 1,000,000 males voters. Now suppose there are two candidates, A and B. If 501,000 men vote for A and the law specifies a simple majority, then A wins.

Same situation except now there are 1,000,000 male voters and 1,000,000 female voters. Now if 501,000 men vote for A and 502,000 women vote for B, then B wins under this scenario.

Plain enough?

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
Yes, your response was straightforward. You just repeated it, thanks. I understood it the first time around, that's not what the problem was. The problem was, which you are trying carefully and desparately not address, that RIGHTS HAVE NOT BEEN LOST BY GIVING THE SAME RIGHT TO SOME OTHERS.

You are sticking to your Strawman like a tic to a coondog. I don't want more hypothetical explanations. I want a real life example to back up your claim. And don't come up with a real life example how some lose POWER; that was not the original claim. Show us real life example that some lost their rights because the same rights were given to others.

Language comprehension is not rocket science. Just read the claim, and address it, not something different. Power is not the same as rights. I don't want a discussion now how power and rights have common overlapping areas. I want you to give me / us a real life example how giving the same right as one have to others makes one lose that right.

This is my second request, and I can't be any clearer. If you again waffle and dodge and do a Strawman, I'm quitting here.
I'm saying that when rights are shared, they may be lost (depending). If they're not shared, then there's nothing to lose. I don't see a straw man fallacy in this case.

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1871
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Rights

Post by -1- » Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:34 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:06 pm
-1- wrote: โ†‘
Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:00 pm
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:47 am
I thought my response was straightforward. Here's an example:

Suppose there are 1,000,000 males voters. Now suppose there are two candidates, A and B. If 501,000 men vote for A and the law specifies a simple majority, then A wins.

Same situation except now there are 1,000,000 male voters and 1,000,000 female voters. Now if 501,000 men vote for A and 502,000 women vote for B, then B wins under this scenario.

Plain enough?

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
Yes, your response was straightforward. You just repeated it, thanks. I understood it the first time around, that's not what the problem was. The problem was, which you are trying carefully and desparately not address, that RIGHTS HAVE NOT BEEN LOST BY GIVING THE SAME RIGHT TO SOME OTHERS.

You are sticking to your Strawman like a tic to a coondog. I don't want more hypothetical explanations. I want a real life example to back up your claim. And don't come up with a real life example how some lose POWER; that was not the original claim. Show us real life example that some lost their rights because the same rights were given to others.

Language comprehension is not rocket science. Just read the claim, and address it, not something different. Power is not the same as rights. I don't want a discussion now how power and rights have common overlapping areas. I want you to give me / us a real life example how giving the same right as one have to others makes one lose that right.

This is my second request, and I can't be any clearer. If you again waffle and dodge and do a Strawman, I'm quitting here.
I'm saying that when rights are shared, they may be lost (depending). If they're not shared, then there's nothing to lose. I don't see a straw man fallacy in this case.

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
In other words, you keep on waffling and avoiding quoting an actual occurrence of your claim. The third time you repeated an obvious hypothetical event, despite my obvious and clear message that it would not be necessary.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5635
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Rights

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:37 pm

-1- wrote: โ†‘
Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:34 pm
Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:06 pm
-1- wrote: โ†‘
Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:00 pm


Yes, your response was straightforward. You just repeated it, thanks. I understood it the first time around, that's not what the problem was. The problem was, which you are trying carefully and desparately not address, that RIGHTS HAVE NOT BEEN LOST BY GIVING THE SAME RIGHT TO SOME OTHERS.

You are sticking to your Strawman like a tic to a coondog. I don't want more hypothetical explanations. I want a real life example to back up your claim. And don't come up with a real life example how some lose POWER; that was not the original claim. Show us real life example that some lost their rights because the same rights were given to others.

Language comprehension is not rocket science. Just read the claim, and address it, not something different. Power is not the same as rights. I don't want a discussion now how power and rights have common overlapping areas. I want you to give me / us a real life example how giving the same right as one have to others makes one lose that right.

This is my second request, and I can't be any clearer. If you again waffle and dodge and do a Strawman, I'm quitting here.
I'm saying that when rights are shared, they may be lost (depending). If they're not shared, then there's nothing to lose. I don't see a straw man fallacy in this case.

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
In other words, you keep on waffling and avoiding quoting an actual occurrence of your claim. The third time you repeated an obvious hypothetical event, despite my obvious and clear message that it would not be necessary.
I equate voting rights with power

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1871
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Rights

Post by -1- » Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:47 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: โ†‘
Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:37 pm
I equate voting rights with power

PhilX ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
..Which is a huge mistake.

And although you equate them, you still come up short with an actual example of your mistaken thinking, although luckily you did not for the fourth time come up with the hypothesis.

But I already said that I won't allow this conversation on my part to foray into arguing about the differences between power and rights.

You do as you please from this point on. In my opinion you have an impoverished capacity to differentiate between meanings of concepts when the differences between them are slight. I am sure you can differentiate a table from rights, but you can't power from rights. That's completely satisfactory to show that this conversation is futile from here on, as well as it has been to this point, and clear to you and me why it is so.

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Rights

Post by Science Fan » Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:51 pm

PE is right --- it actually is a zero-sum game. When men had the right to vote and women didn't, then that meant male politicians did not have to worry about competing against female politicians. It also meant men did not have to worry about legislation that may have favored fair treatment of women. While men still had the right to vote, they could no longer treat women with impunity and get away with it. A similar event occurred when colored people could vote, and poor white men could vote, those who previously had a monopoly on voting saw a decline in their political power, that they now had to share with the Other.

Skip
Posts: 2529
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Rights

Post by Skip » Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:23 pm

Do you all agree that rights=privilege=power=monopoly?
In that case, why bother having those different words? Or a constitution? Or laws?
Just say: whoever has the biggest weapons makes all the rules and gets all the perks. Just like the good ol' slav'ry days.

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Rights

Post by Science Fan » Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:27 pm

Monopoly has a very specific economic meaning that does not apply to such things as political rights or voting rights.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TimeSeeker and 4 guests