Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:21 am
commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 9:43 pm
So what’s it going to be? Rights must be guaranteed or rights need only have the authority, the means and the accountability to be rights.
By your 3 criteria, basic healthcare is a right, but just not guaranteed.
Basic health care is a blessing. But it cannot be a "right," because it totally depends on the ability of the government to deliver it.
Do 'you', human beings, KNOW WHY 'you' continually drift off and LOOK AT 'things' from a monetary and/or political perspective instead of just staying focused on what thee ACTUAL Truth IS. For example, if one is walking down the street and sees "another" fall over, then that former one can just provide 'basic healthcare'. NO 'government' is needed to deliver 'basic healthcare' here. Therefore, 'basic healthcare' here was NOT, and thus is NOT, totally dependent upon the government to deliver the 'basic healthcare'.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:21 am
If that government lacks the means, it can't be held accountable for not having provided it: you can't give what you don't have. And if it has no authority to make its will happen, then the alleged "right" is no more powerful than the government that delivers it.
"Guaranteed" is a tricky word. Does it mean "guaranteed to be given?" Then there are no rights. Or does it mean, "guaranteed that even if it's not given, that's a violation of your rights?" And I think it's in the latter sense that people really want to use the word: they want to say, "if you don't give me freedom, you have done something intrinsically evil to me, something contrary to the actual nature of what I am." That's how they want it to play. Otherwise, "rights" talk gives no grounds for calling any government "a violator of rights," since "rights" extend no farther than the government's whims.
George Floyd had the right to breathe,
He shouldn't have taken so my fentanyl, then. He would probably still be breathing, like all the other people in his car.
That is one way to LOOK AT 'this'.
Another way to LOOK AT 'this' is; if "george floyd" never took his first breath, after he squirmed his way out of the birth canal, then he would not have grown up, would not have taken drugs as well, and then he would not have put "himself" under the knee of "another".
So, if "george floyd" should not have taken so many fentanyl, then he also should not have grown up, and thus he should not have taken his first breath either. That way he would have NOT been in the position he, allegedly, put "himself" in, correct?
Have you ever stopped, to consider WHY "george floyd" was "taking so many fentanyl" in the first place?
Or, have you just concluded that it is all "george floyd's" FAULT why he is NOT breathing anymore?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:21 am
Apparently, his suffocation was drug induced; he was saying "I can't breathe" long before the cops wrestled with him, and his coroner says he didn't have the normal signs of suffocation, such as a crushed hyoid bone or retinal petechiae.
Is there REALLY a "normal" sign of suffocation?
If yes, then you just made the claim that "george" was claiming that "he could not breathe", and he was, supposedly, doing this, "long before the cops wrestled with him". To 'you', if a human being is saying, "I can't breathe", and they died of suffocation, then would that be a "normal sign" of suffocation?
If yes, then IF "george" died of suffocation because of WHY he was saying, "I can't breathe", then HOW did the coroner arrive at the conclusion that "george" did NOT have the "normal signs of suffocation"?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:21 am
So it looks like he signed off on his own life.
LOL Even though I KNOW EXACTLY WHY 'you', human beings, ARE the way you ARE, it never ceased to amaze me the way some of 'you', adult human beings, were SO CRUEL to, and SO JUDGMENTAL of, other human beings.
For 'you', 'immanuel can", to write such a thing as you have here, especially on a public forum for ALL to SEE, SHOWS just how little respect you have for some "others", and for their lives.
WHY do 'you' think it is that some of the one's who call themselves, "christians", in the days when this was being written, were some of the most CRUELEST people, in that "world"?
But in that reference you're talking about one of the
real human rights...the right to life. And yes, everybody has that. However, nobody could stop George Floyd from choosing a life of crime and drug abuse;[/quote]
LOL "Nobody"?
Are you REALLY 'trying to' suggest that NOBODY could have had a different influence on the human being named and labeled "george floyd" here?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:21 am
another fundamental right gave him that ability. He had a right to choose; he had freedom.
BUT, NO one has the choice in what environment they are born into, and grow up in as a child also.
Also, 'you', human beings, have FREE WILL, but ONLY in regards to
having the ability to choose, BUT, what 'you' have to CHOOSE FROM is limited and determined by previous experiences, and thus is (pre) determined.
EVERY one has 'freedom', but, REALLY, how much 'freedom' do children REALLY HAVE?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:21 am
Human rights are for humans, but just not always enjoyed by all humans.
You are correct in the above. We are agreeing. But then, they are not a human construct.
If you were to agree that rights are wishful thoughts about what might be good for anyone to have,
Well, "wishful thoughts" have no power, no justification, and no authority behind them. They're only wishes.
You might be "wishful thinking" you want a Lamborghini. That doesn't mean one appears in your driveway. And it doesn't make Lamborghini ownership a "right."